Zero-sum game (1) - The paradox from comprehensive reset to global epidemic prevention strategy

Hello everyone, my name is Marley. This is a small channel that advocates thinking and tearing fifty cents by hand. In each issue, we will combine a political and economic case to discuss the reasons behind it and different thinking dimensions.

Not long ago, an article titled "The Sorrows of the People of Xi'an: Why Do Some People Escape from Xi'an at the Risk of Breaking the Law and Risking Death?" "**'s articles are popular on the Internet. I believe that many people have already read this article. In order to avoid the yellow label, I will not introduce the content of this article. This article apparently did not escape the curse of 404 in the wall in the end, and the survival time did not exceed 24 hours. Some people call this article the Xi'an version of Fang Fang's diary. I will put the off- wall link of the article below the video, and students who haven't read it can check it out by themselves.

Since the survival time does not exceed 24 hours, it is naturally defined as rumors and false spread by the official. I found an interesting point. Before the article was blocked, even if the author also published relevant "error clarifications", it seems that it cannot prevent the rapid spread and spread of this article. Is it easier for rumors to spread? Or will the truth never be silent? Today we will try to explain this problem. Before explaining, let me explain that this video does not focus on discussing whether what is described in the article is true or not. I believe that you must have your own judgment in front of the screen. If you have local friends in Xi'an, you can ask them. Clear. Today, we only discuss this issue from the perspective of communication and sociology, hoping to bring you some useful thinking.

Have you ever noticed a phenomenon that when you have a heated debate or quarrel with someone, no matter how you present the facts and reason, after a lot of nice and ugly things are said, apart from wasting a lot of time and saliva, it seems that someone Neither persuaded the other, but both felt that they were more reasonable. Does the debater really feel that he is right, or is it psychological?

Let's look at two stories first. Two American political science professors, sociologist Nien and Reeffler once conducted a social experiment in 2005-2006. They divided the subjects into two groups and let them watch the There are two sets of reports. One report is that former US President George W. Bush said that it was reasonable for the US to send troops to Iraq, because Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, but they were destroyed or hidden before the US troops sent troops. The first half of the other report is the same as the first one, except that the CIA's rumors and evidence were added later, and it has been proved that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. It turned out that people who originally supported Bush Jr., after reading the article to refute the rumor, felt that their position was fine and firmly supported Bush Jr.'s decision.

The second story is also a painful American sociologist. In order to prove whether the above story is reasonable, he also did an experiment. The subjects were also divided into three groups, and the first two groups had them distribute leaflets advocating birth control in local high schools. One group of people would receive strong anti-birth control emails in their mailboxes, and the other group would not. The remaining group neither knew about handing out flyers nor received any mail. After distributing the flyers, the professor asked these people if they would like to join a campaign advocating birth control in local high schools, stating that the campaign would require a lot of time and resources from participants.

The results showed that the group that did nothing had the least willingness to go to the event, followed by the group that handed out flyers but did not receive the email, and the group that sent the flyer and received the email was significantly more willing go to this event.

After talking about these two stories, you will definitely think that this is the psychology of most pinks and anti-thieves. They are all brainwashed and firmly believe that their thoughts are what they knew before, and they will not be based on evidence. Show and change your perception. But is this really the case? According to further research by psychologists, in fact, such cognition is not directly related to the authenticity of the evidence. If you directly list the facts and make the truth with the party that contradicts your opinion, it will make them feel that you are arguing with the truth. It won't change their minds, but it will make them firmer that their minds are correct. To refute one party is to shoot himself in the foot, asking for no fun. Therefore, I always think that any form of debate between the so-called pink and anti-thief is meaningless. Although I have done a lot of refuting rumors and clarifying fallacies, I also know that in addition to making myself happy, it will make the other party more Unhappy, there is no way to convince the other party.

This is called the "boomerang effect" or "backfire effect" in psychology. As for why this happens? I'll sell it off first and leave it to the end.

Let's go back to the example of Xi'an, and let's put aside whether the article is true or not, and whether the rumors are credible. Those who believe will naturally believe, and those who do not believe will not believe no matter how hard they refute the rumors. And the more you refute rumors, the more you will doubt the motives of the refutators and trust your own judgment.

Here comes a problem. For public events, no matter what the left and right, how to make the other party believe in you has become a social problem.

In 1986, German sociologist Ulrich Baker and British thinker Giddens put forward the concept of "risk society", which means that in addition to natural risks, technological risks and institutional risks faced by human society are becoming more and more prominent. Different from natural risks, technological risks and institutional risks are caused by the consequences of human decisions and behaviors. In short, the various problems in today's society are three-part natural disasters and seven-part man-made disasters.

And such a risk is a common problem faced by human beings after rapid industrialization and modernization. The timing of putting forward this concept is right after the Chernobyl nuclear leakage accident in the Soviet Union. The revelation brought to people is that human beings are experiencing After the explosion of science and productivity, while enjoying the pleasure brought by technology, the risks brought by these great developments are often ignored, and when human beings are dealing with these risks and disasters, they often appear to be either blindly optimistic, or At a loss. From nuclear leaks to economic crises, to the current global pandemic, there is a lack of capacity and a flawed system. Let's take the epidemic as an example. In the face of the first non-war global disaster in the past 100 years, no country dares to say that its response method is the best (except for two well-deserved democracies). If natural disasters and some accidental events can still recover some losses through financial insurance, then in the event of man-made disasters and problems beyond what current technology can solve, only human beings can adapt to such risks and reserve knowledge. Baker believes that social risk does not exist because of your class or location, and it affects almost everyone. Giddens said that it is impossible to just take a negative attitude towards risk, risk cannot be disciplined, so actively taking risk is the first problem that a good society should face.

Let's go back to the issue of "anti-epidemic". As we all know, the epidemic itself is a huge social risk, and it has already caused disasters, and the scientific community has acknowledged that there is currently no best way to prevent this risk from technology. China's strategy is a zero policy. As a risk, how can it be zero? And behind this zero-clearing policy, it reflects his blind self-confidence and resistance to opposition. Combining this incident in Xi'an, we started by saying that, regardless of whether the makers of the speech have ulterior motives, if there is a voice that violates the policy, we will take measures to refute and block it. I began to say that people who believe in you will do so without refuting. People who believe or don't believe in you will not believe even if you are reasonable, it will not enhance the credibility of the refuters at all, and it will also cause more rumors and doubts to fly, because everyone has evidence that is beneficial to themselves before proceeding. Rebut, and the consequences of doing so will exacerbate the rift and distrust of the opponent.

Professor Xue Lan, a Chinese public management expert, once pointed out when the epidemic broke out in 2020 that this epidemic is actually a "coming of age ceremony" for China to enter a modern risk society. China must face the test of a risk society as a whole. Behind scientific prevention and control is scientific risk analysis, and based on this to determine reasonable countermeasures. What he is particularly worried about is entering the traditional mode of political mobilization and mechanically copying the instructions of the superiors, which will bring greater risks to the society. For example, when to declare a "state of emergency", how to grant special powers to local governments to minimize the loss of people's lives and properties, and which basic civil rights cannot be deprived in a state of emergency. The judgment of risk should not only be made by individuals, but should be analyzed and judged by multidisciplinary experts after collective discussion, to give suggestions on the government's implementation strategies and so on. Obviously, judging from China's current anti-epidemic policy, Professor Xue Lan's worries still occurred. What China has done is only to fight the epidemic (clearing) itself. As for other comprehensive risks after the anti-epidemic, it cannot be mentioned at all. , also not allowed to mention.

For Western society, we mentioned at the beginning, why are there so many new cases every day, but the official is more and more Buddhist in the control of the epidemic, and the people are more and more resistant to the government's coercive policies? Is it that Westerners won't die if they don't die?

First of all, let’s talk about the “boomerang effect” we started talking about. Taking the United States as an example, the annual seasonal influenza will cause thousands of deaths and increase medical costs by hundreds of millions of yuan, but many Americans still believe in influenza The rumor that the vaccine will cause the flu or that the vaccine is ineffective, although we all know this is a rumor, but the more the rumor is refuted, the people who oppose the vaccine will strengthen their determination not to vaccinate. The two sociologists mentioned at the beginning, Nien and Reeffler, have also confirmed the above point of view through research.

Secondly, for the epidemic itself, it has been two years since it occurred. From the perspective of cognitive saturation and mortality, people already feel that it is not so terrible. People all over the world, especially the West, have recovered from the panic two years ago. Slowly I learned how to live with the epidemic. From a psychological point of view, the more you live with the epidemic, the more you can slowly and systematically desensitize and generate antibodies against terror. The more you resort to fear and coercion, the more it will backfire.

But this does not mean that there is no social risk, and the government or policy executors need to bear the responsibility and public doubts brought about by this part of the risk (who told you to take money to do things?). Can that enforce administrative measures to get these people vaccinated and quarantined? At least in Western society it doesn't work, even if they are sick they still have to take up social resources. In the eyes of most Chinese people, including myself, it is difficult to understand, but from a social point of view, you can't ignore this issue because it is the personal concept of some people. From the perspective of risk response, the government and corresponding experts need to adopt different strategies to minimize the impact of this risk on the basis of respecting your personal freedom. Therefore, the contradiction between the people and the government is inevitable in the face of certain crises and risks. You cannot ignore it, nor can you ignore it.

Well, the content of this is relatively hard, let's briefly summarize, we mentioned the two concepts of boomerang effect and risk society.

The boomerang effect (backfire effect) mainly means that the more you refute a point of view or prove it wrong, the object you refute may deepen his inherent point of view, and the evidence you refute is true or not. Direct relationship. Why is this so? Let’s answer this question now. This has something to do with the three views, standpoint, and identity of the person being refuted. The inertia and inertia of the brain itself, and people’s rigid psychological needs for security, certainty, and self-esteem make it difficult for people to By separating opinions from individuals, people's sense of self-preservation will protect themselves even if they are wrong. Therefore, it is difficult to change a person's inherent concept only from debate and refuting rumors. If you want to convince a person to change his point of view, you might as well tolerate his disagreement with your point of view instead of directly refuting him. You can adopt the strategy of letting the bullet fly for a while. The truth will eventually pay off, and those who are willing to change will naturally change. Listening simultaneously will make it clear, and partial trust will make it dark. If you don't want to change, you won't believe anything you say. Convincing people with virtue is far more effective than convincing people with reason.

Secondly, with the development of globalization and the excess of information, the current society will inevitably show the characteristics of a risk society, and human economic life will face various natural and man-made disasters. For ordinary people, we must learn to live with Risks coexist and face risks. For government departments, how to deal with trust and distrust is also a social risk in itself. Public management and crisis management are complex subjects that require wisdom. Let us still take epidemic control as an example. Different people will have different views. Epidemiologists may argue that everyone should Complete isolation; clinical medical experts may think that the epidemic can be effectively treated and do not advocate strict isolation; economists believe that isolation is not required at all, and the socio-economic impact is too great, and only protective measures at the individual level are needed. At this time, experts from different disciplines need to work together to form a consensus and put forward policy recommendations. For example, several policy options are listed for decision makers, scientific estimates are given for the costs and benefits of each option and the probability of occurrence, and finally the government makes a decision. Even if the government's decision is wrong, a false alarm is better than covering up the truth and overwhelmed people. If people accept the concept of risk society, they can also recognize that this is a necessary risk management cost.

Well, that's all for today's sharing. If you think this video is still helpful to you, please subscribe, like, share, and support. I'm Marley, see you next time, 88.